 | Between the United States and Germany 1945-1954 |
| | Between the United States and Germany 1945-1954 |
An extraordinary kind of administrative machinery was mounted on both sides of the Atlantic to develop and manage a program that had no precedent and no equal in the history of cultural and educational exchange. In the United States the Department of State assumed policy and program responsibility, with the cooperation of a large number of public and private agencies. In Germany, the Office of Public Affairs organized effective relations with other offices in HICOG and progressively encouraged the participation of German authorities and institutions in carrying out the program.
As in the case of the reorientation program as a whole, two major considerations determined the structure of the organization needed in the United States to guide and support HICOG operations. One was the establishment of clear channels of authority through the assumption by the Department of State of central responsibility for policy, program proposals, and suggestion of projects.(1) The second was the creation of intra-agency and interagency arrangements that could be relied upon to give, in-depth support to HICOG operations. This was done in two ways: first, through close day-by-day coordination of activities between the policy-making and the program-executing units of the geographical bureau and the public affairs bureau, respectively; and, second, through the enlistment by the latter of the resources and facilities available in other government agencies and in the private sector.
The functions of the Department of State, notably its Division of International Exchange of Persons (IEP), were greatly expanded and exceeded by far those performed by the Department of the Army in OMGUS days. They encompassed, first of all, responsibility for general policy guidance, program proposals, and suggestion of projects. They included, furthermore, arrangements through correspondence by phone with the public and private agencies, institutions, and individuals in the United States cooperating in the program on a contractual or voluntary basis, negotiation of contracts, control and supervision of services performed, for instance, by the Institute of International Education for German students; arrangement of sponsorship of German leaders, experts, specialists, and trainees by suitable public and private agencies and institutions in the United States; review and final approval of programs of observation, study or training arranged by such sponsoring agencies; security clearance of all participants; and, finally, reception and orientation of the Germans when they arrived.(2)
The Department of State was likewise responsible for the recruitment, selection, and briefing of American specialists going to Germany,(3) and for all arrangements and commitments incident thereto, as long as such visits were sponsored or funded by the Department. In cases of private sponsorship, approval by the Department after prior concurrence by HICOG's Exchanges Division was required.
The performance of these functions necessitated the pooling and coordination of all pertinent resources and facilities within the Department, but most specifically the Bureau of German Affairs and the Division of International Exchange of Persons in the Bureau of Public Affairs.
Again, as in the case of the Reorientation Program, general responsibility for policy guidance and program planning as regards exchange of persons was centered in the Office of German Public Affairs (GAI) of the Bureau of German Affairs.(4) Vaughn DeLong,(5) an educationist who had worked as an education officer in OMGUS, was appointed Officer-in-Charge of the Division of German Cultural and Social Affairs which handled the policy aspects of the exchange program. Under the direction of the author and in consultation with other substantive offices of the Bureau of German Affairs, and upon the recommendation of HICOG, he determined program priorities, especially with respect to the selection of American experts and German participants, and the choice of projects. As a member of the geographic bureau (GER), he was in the unique position of providing that Bureau and its offices with a practical tool for the execution of some of its policies while, at the same time, receiving constant guidance from them in the choice of candidates and projects. The location of total responsibility for policy and planning in the Bureau of German Affairs thus insured full integration of the exchange programs with U.S. policy for Germany.(6)
To be more specific about these complicated bureaucratic details, it should be mentioned that having no operational facilities of its own and wishing to draw on the resources and to relate, as closely as feasible, to the objectives of the Department's worldwide exchange program, the Bureau of German Affairs (GER) entered into convenient partnership with the U.S. International Information and Educational Exchange Program (USIE) which operated under the auspices of the Assistant Secretary of State for Public, Affairs.(7) A general manager, Charles M. Hulten, administered the three major program units, one of which was the Office, of Educational Exchange (OEX) under the direction of William C. Johnstone, Jr.
OEX, in turn, was subdivided in two divisions, the Division of Institutes and Libraries (ILI), and the Division of International Exchange of Persons (IEP) whose chief was Francis J. Colligan, and whose deputy chief was Frederic O. Bundy. The responsibility of IEP, which assigned a staff of 39---a. number that was later increased---exclusively to the German program, was to carry out the domestic operations of the program, to establish basic procedures and operational policies, and to insure the full use of facilities of other cooperating agencies, public and private. It exercised complete final control over all exchanges. Finally, it selected and processed all American experts going to Germany. Salaries for the IEP staff detailed to work on the German exchange program and for two additional posts in the Office of General Manager were entirely funded from the overall German Affairs GOAG budget which provided for all expenditures incurred by the Department and HICOG in execution of the U.S. mandate for Germany.(8)
The stateside division of labor between the Division of Cultural and Social Affairs of the Office of German Public Affairs (GAI), and its counterparts in USIE and OEX worked remarkably well. It gave GAI easy access to USIE and OEX program facilities, and at the same time insured that the exchange policies of the global USIE program were implemented to the extent possible in the program for Germany.(9) It also guaranteed that IEP facilities in the United States, e.g., reception and orientation centers, as well as the private and public agency resources contracted by IEP, were available for the execution of the program. Most importantly, the arrangements established the primacy of the geographical bureau, GER, in setting policies and presiding over the program. For, while USIE, as a rule, directed exchange programs subject to "review" and "advice" by the regional bureaus,(10) the special status and responsibilities of the United States in Germany required closer direction and supervision by the competent geographic bureau with the ultimate authority for policy formulation and guidance for all public affairs programs, including exchanges, resting with the Office of German Public Affairs. This was the overall administrative arrangement in the Department until 1952.
With the exception of certain leader programs for key government officials and legislators who were handled directly by GER/ GAI, program execution was delegated to other government agencies and to private institutions, with IEP arranging the contracts and grants-in-aid, and retaining general supervisory functions. Selection of agencies and institutions was done in consideration of their special field of competence to meet the interests and needs of the different categories of exchangees. The terms of cooperation were spelled out in detailed guidelines which explained the objectives of the program, assignment procedure and criteria, reception and itinerary, coordination with government agencies, publicity, per diem and travel payments, travel arrangements, insurance, and other operational. details. Among other things, the guidelines provided for a week of general orientation for each visitor in the Washington International Center.(11) They also stipulated greatest possible flexibility in designing the itinerary of each exchangee making certain that his avocational interests were met as fully as possible and at the same time that his observations and study were not limited to his field of specialization but encompassed a broad spectrum of American life. To achieve this, exchangees were to be permitted to participate fully in the formulation of their own programs. Furthermore, they were encouraged to establish contacts with Americans who were familiar with contemporary Germany, having been visitors or lecturers and specialists under the U.S.-German exchange program. Care was taken to limit visits to a relatively small number of communities rather than to permit hasty trips to a larger number, thus allowing, for more intensive contacts with families and civic life. At the same time, the guidelines cautioned against a best-foot-forward approach that highlighted the most favorable aspects of American life; instead, they proposed a program that would give the visitor "a balanced view" of progress made and of problems yet to be solved.(12) The basic assumption appears to have been that "a balanced view" would in effect be favorable, with positive impressions outweighing the negative ones---an assumption that was by and large confirmed by subsequent surveys (see Chapter VIII).
A number of government agencies played a significant part in planning and organizing exchange projects for special leader categories. The Department of Labor handled several groups. Its Office of International Labor Affairs programmed the visits of labor and management leaders and others concerned with labor problems, e.g., trade union officials; chairmen of workers' councils; management representatives concerned with labor-management relations; government officials responsible for mediation and conciliation functions, employment services, labor standards, labor statistics, welfare, and insurance plans for workers; college and university faculty members specializing in labor problems; members of labor research institutes; and editors or staff members of labor newspapers and magazines.
The Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor assumed responsibility for projects of German women leaders. The Department of Agriculture arranged programs of farm leaders. The Federal Security Agency, through its Office of International Relations, the Office of Education, the Social Security Administration, especially its Children's Bureau, and the Public Health Service, looked after educational administrators, teachers, welfare workers, and health officials. Other cooperating agencies were the Department of Interior, the Bureau of the Budget, and the Housing and Home Finance Agency.(13)
But by far the largest number of cosponsors, acting under contract with the Department of State or other governmental agencies, were private organizations. As the Smith-Mundt Act required, these were organizations with reputable records of experience in the exchange field. Others were agencies experienced in specific fields which added sponsorship of exchange projects to their established functions. In some cases, where no appropriate private, agencies could be found to deal with special categories of projects, ad hoc sponsoring groups were created.
Until 1951, when it ceased to exist, the Commission on Occupied Areas (COA) of the American Council on Education, thanks largely to the energetic efforts of Dr. Herman Wells, was one of the newly established cosponsors. The Department of State and HICOG considered COA as one of the prime promoters and coordinators of private interests and availed themselves extensively of its highly professional resources. Both State and HICOG participated actively in the three major national conferences arranged by COA in 1949 and 1950. As noted earlier (see Chapter III), professional panels, 12 altogether, were set up by COA, chaired by members of the. Commission and composed of specialists, each of whom was a leading member in his or her profession. The panels were staffed with coordinators competent in the panels' functions. Their primary task was advisory, promotional, supervisory, and coordinative. But each panel was encouraged to initiate and carry through any projects and recommendations within its own area of interest.(14)
Thus the Community Activities Panel of COA sponsored programs for youth and community leaders; the Government Affairs and Social Sciences Panel for government officials and legislators; and the Legal Affairs Panel for judges, legislators, lawyers, criminologists, and police officials. In addition, the panels organized conferences in their specific fields of competence, and assisted in the development of contacts between American groups and their German counterparts. Three members of COA, Vice Chairman Karl W. Bigelow, Bernice Bridges, and Msgr. William E. McManus, were sent to Germany and Austria in 1950 to study the role of American voluntary agencies in these two countries and to report their findings to a national conference of hundreds of private sponsors. The team recommended, among other things, an increase in the participation by private, organizations in the exchange, of persons programs. "Such efforts," the report concluded, "contribute more importantly than any other kind to the strengthening of education and cultural relations with Germany and Austria." (15) It proposed a series of criteria to be observed by sponsoring agencies in developing programs, in selecting candidates, in providing the services of American experts, and in promoting affiliations between American universities, colleges, schools, churches, social and cultural agencies, study and research groups, and corresponding German and Austrian institutions.(16)
After the demise of COA, a number of governmental and nongovernmental agencies and organizations inherited exchange programs previously handled by COA panels. The lion's share for sponsoring public notables fell upon the Governmental Affairs Institute which, at first under the auspices of the American Political Science Association, but later as an independent incorporated organization, programmed the exchanges of political leaders from Germany and Austria.(17) The Institute had a small professional staff headed by H. Philip Mettger, a former OMGUS official, coordinator of COA's Panel on Governmental Affairs, and vice president of the Governmental Affairs Institute. In 1954 the Institute was reorganized and its responsibilities expanded. With the exception of projects so special that they had to be handled directly by the Department of State, and those conducted by the Office of International Labor Affairs of the Department of Labor, all exchange programs for government officials were transferred to the Governmental Affairs Institute. But the clientele of the Institute was soon greatly expanded. Under the terms of its contract with the Department of State, the Institute arranged the national itineraries of political leaders and government officials except for those of persons primarily interested in education, cultural affairs, youth, social welfare or labor matters; of newspaper publishers, editors, correspondents, and reporters, except for those interested in the aforementioned subjects; of radio and television writers, editors, broadcasters, and commentators primarily concerned with political, governmental, and international affairs; of leaders in important organizations primarily interested in civic (e.g., women in organizations comparable to the League of Women Voters), political, governmental, and international affairs; of university and college professors of political science, public administration, and international relations; of staff of research institutes publishing periodicals in the above subject areas; of important representatives of professional organizations in these fields; of leaders in the field of law, law enforcement, and penal affairs, including lawyers, prosecuting attorneys, judges, police officers, and prison officials except for those, primarily interested in juvenile courts and correctional institutions for juvenile delinquents.(18)
As noted elsewhere in this study, various aspects of the planning for the experiences of German visitors to the United States resulted in the development of procedures that proved so effective that they have been continued and are used with the worldwide, State Department Exchange of Persons Program. One example is the orientation program for foreign visitors.
As early as the forties special orientation programs were provided for foreign visitors arriving here on State Department grants. They were conducted primarily for students and trainees, and were held under various auspices at different localities throughout the country. When the large program with Germany got underway, however, the need for a regularized introduction to the United States for German leaders was recognized. Consequently, in 1950 the Commission on the Occupied Areas, with financial assistance from the Department, organized a general orientation program in Washington as a key activity in the plans for German and Austrian leaders coming here under the Department's auspices.(19)
The working group that organized the program included Mgr. William E. McManus and Bernice Bridges of the Commission, George E. Beauchamp of the Commission Staff, and Vaughn DeLong, the OMGUS liaison representative to the Commission. The program's offerings consisted of a week-long introduction to the United States presented at the Washington YWCA, first headquarters of what was to become the Washington International Center. The program itself consisted of an introduction to the United States---history, arts, letters, labor, religion, education, agriculture, and government. All decisions of the working group in planning the orientation sessions revolved around consideration of procedures that would best illustrate and set forth the American concept of citizenship in a democracy. Thus, the speakers for the orientation session on religion, for example, included one representative each of the Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish faiths.
Soon the YWCA quarters were outgrown, as the Center adapted its programs to serving the increasing number of Department-sponsored visitors from all parts of the world. The need for larger facilities resulted in several moves, culminating in the purchase of the handsome and spacious Meridian House in Washington, D.C., made possible by a grant from the Ford Foundation, where the now privately-administered Washington International Center is located. It is of interest to note that there, was much discussion from the. very beginning about the relative merit of locating the orientation center in New York or Washington. The choice of Washington was based on the belief that a more effective orientation would be possible in the national capital.
Later, the Department of State turned to the American Council on Education for assistance in organizing tailor-made program arrangements and itineraries for leading personalities in the fields of education, arts, and culture. Specifically included were visits with college and university presidents, deans, professors; directors and staff members of special institutes, academies and seminaries; school principals and teachers on all levels of education; leaders in the field of adult education; leaders in the field of fine arts and cultural affairs; government officials; radio and television leaders, newspaper writers and editors if primarily concerned with education, the fine arts and cultural affairs; and those engaged in the production, distribution, and utilization of feature and documentary motion pictures.(20)
The National Academy of Science arranged opportunities for qualified visitors to teach, lecture, or undertake research at appropriate American institutions. The National Social Welfare Assembly, under the direction of the late Bernice Bridges, took command of programs for youth leaders and leaders in the field of community relations and social services.
As pointed out before, the social work field attracted a good deal of attention. Although the program itself was modest in scope, it was one of those in the private sector where a major innovative effort was called for to deal with such problems as child and family care and, above all, organized youth, all of which presented major social challenges in postwar German society. In response to this need an enlightened group of citizens in Cleveland, Ohio, under the leadership of a social service executive, Henry B. Ollendorff, started in 1956 a program for the training of 25 German youth leaders, with the encouragement and support of the Department of State. The purpose of the program was to bring the professionalism of American social work into a situation where the technical tools and human resources in this field were sadly lacking.
In the following year the program was named "The Cleveland International Program for Youth Leaders and Social Workers, Inc." (CIP). It soon became multinational and included youth leaders from other countries, and it added agencies in other American cities as cosponsors. Twenty years later, the number of participants had increased to 175. It then comprised social workers, youth workers, and volunteer youth leaders from 55 countries. Its objectives combined humanitarian and professional purposes, namely, "to increase mutual understanding among people and to increase professional knowledge in the fields of social work and youth work." Interestingly, over the years the number of German participants has remained among the highest.(21)
Many other examples of institutions concerned with international educational and cultural exchange could be cited which received a strong impetus from the type and magnitude of programs for German students and trainees arriving in the United States in the early fifties or were a direct outgrowth of these programs. One of these would surely be the program for foreign journalists which began at the School of Journalism at Northwestern University under Professor Floyd G. Arpan. He later transferred the program to Indiana University School of Journalism, and has been operating there ever since. Its 25th anniversary was celebrated in 1974, when the published record showed that young journalists from 70 countries had participated over that period, many of whom have since become outstanding journalists in their own countries. Newspapers in 39 States had cooperated in carrying out the program.
Another notable example is that of Youth for Understanding, which began with a very small number of German teenagers sponsored by the, Ann Arbor Council of Churches under the direction of Mrs. Rachel Andresen. The program rapidly expanded into the state of Michigan under the auspices of the Michigan Council of Churches; it has now become worldwide and nationwide, and each year moves as many as 9,000 teenagers between their countries and the United States.
A similar example is that of the American Field Service International Scholarships program, which had begun on a small scale as a predominantly humanitarian gesture, between France and the United States after World War I. But, with the infusion into the program of 300 German youngsters scattered about this country on farms and in city high schools in the early fifties the intrinsic and political value of such exchanges was suddenly discovered. It now sponsors about 2,500 secondary school students for a year each in American high schools and sends at least an equal number abroad for stays with foreign families.(22)
Other programs which grew less rapidly and on-a smaller scale, but which began with the German program, evolved into permanent and worldwide programs for journalists, librarians, writers, museologists, and other specialists who received training in their fields aided by such institutions as the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Iowa, the Library of Congress, and the Association of American Museums. After a period of specialized training, the grantees then traveled about the United States on State Department funds.
With respect to university student exchanges, the Department continued to rely on the services of the Institute of International Education (IIE) which had previously been employed by the Department of the Army for programs with Germany. Under contract with the Department of State, IIE was responsible for placing students in as many areas of the United States as possible, as well as for guidance and counseling, for obtaining scholarships, tuition waivers, room and board or any combination, and for supplementing government funds. Often residence was provided by fraternities and sororities on campuses. IIE was expected to make semiannual reports to the Department on the students' progress. The German student program was by far the largest single program the IIE had ever handled. It, in turn, contracted for programs with American colleges and universities. In 1950,(23) colleges and universities participated in the program; by 1952 the number had reached a total of 52. Major subject matters differed from institution to institution.
In the early forties the Department of State had established Reception Centers in four major port cities---New York, Miami, New Orleans, San Francisco---to receive and assist foreign visitors arriving in the United States. But in these and other cities throughout the country local contacts established over the years were not geared to take on the massive influx of German visitors arriving in the late forties and early fifties. What was needed were local sponsors who could mobilize on a much larger scale the professional and volunteer resources of the whole community. As a result, community organizations to provide, programming and hospitality services to the visitors were established in about twenty of the most frequently visited American cities. Universities, colleges, schools, and other state and private, agencies cooperated to help meet the challenge.
As was noted earlier, the OMGUS program was transferred to the Department of State under considerable pressure and in some haste. For instance, as regards the complications of transfer of funds and reorganization of personnel, the Department, beginning in January of 1950, had to complete a full fiscal year's program in 6 months-by June 30, 1950.
Fortunately, officers in the Department and private organizations across the country were ready to meet the emergency demands during the hectic changeover period. Had this not been so, the program would never have succeeded. A number of examples come to mind at once, such as a direct placement by the Department of State in approximately 60 colleges and universities of groups of Germans in such fields as foreign service, political and social science, law, industrial relations, police administration, home economics, agriculture, and the like. The Department showed marked flexibility in accommodating American sponsors. When the dean of a law school in January of 1950 was asked to accept 12 German advanced law students (Referendare), sight unseen, no names known, the Department was able to assure them that all their study expenses would be paid, and enough money would be available to pay for special courses, housing, community visits, and the like.
With respect to Americans going to Germany, private support was limited in view of the modest scope of the effort prior to the initiation of the Fulbright program. The Department's major contractor for artists was the American National Theater and Academy (ANTA) which arranged for American participation in the Berlin Cultural Festival and for the appearances of American artists in Western Germany (see above).
The above list of private cosponsors is not complete. It does not include, for instance, the large number of organizations, notably churches, which invited German leaders, specialists, students and trainees to visit the United States entirely under their auspices. Estimates of the number of Germans and Americans involved are impossible to obtain. A tentative guess would be neither accurate nor fair. It suffices to say that the American community, academic and nonacademic, rose nobly to the challenge. Without private support the exchange program would never have achieved the scope nor the impact that made the difference between success and failure.
Responsibility for program development operation and administration in HICOG was anchored in the Exchanges Division under the direction of Dr. Ralph A. Burns, a professor of education on leave from Dartmouth College. Dedicated to the concept of exchange as a. "democratic catalyst" in the German social order, Burns believed that exchange would prove to be a significant factor in the process of democratic reform.(24) Under Burns' leadership the exchange program assumed division status, becoming one of the four divisions of the Office of Public Affairs, the others being Education and Cultural Relations, Information Services, and Public Relations. U.S. High Commission Staff Announcement 8 of September 21, 1949(25) stipulated that the "Exchanges Division ... controls and evaluates all programs for the exchange of persons and reorientation materials, advises on grants-in-aid or other types of assistance to German organizations cooperating in [the] reorientation program and maintains necessary liaison with budget and fiscal authorities to insure proper financial management of such programs." The mandate was comprehensive. It involved, among other things, the development of program plans, the preparation and management of a large budget ($6.3 million at its peak), supervision of operations and extensive coordination of selection of exchanges with substantive offices, such as the Offices of Political Affairs, Labor Affairs, the General Counsel, the Office of Economic Affairs,(26) with the Information Services Division, and, above all, with the Division of Education and Cultural Relations. As part of its managerial functions, the, Exchanges Division developed a series of highly meticulous procedures for the allocation of exchange opportunities, for project preparation, processing and review, for the selection of candidates, for publicity review and follow up.(27) The Division discharged its functions through two branches, a Personnel Exchange and a Materials Exchange Branch, and through exchange offices attached to 15 public affairs field centers, each headed by a regional public affairs officer (Land (State) /Exchange Branch).(28)
In 1951-1952, in tune with a general review of policy and a corresponding organizational adjustment in HICOG, the exchange program was integrated with cultural activities and became a branch within the Division of Cultural Affairs. Its principal function was that of advising the chief of the division on matters of policy, but it retained its previous responsibilities of controlling, administering, and evaluating the exchange of persons program. The Branch was subdivided into program implementation and evaluation sections operating under the supervision of the Office of the Chief, who was Everett G. Chapman. Field operations were handled by exchange officers attached to the public affairs staffs of the ten consulates general throughout the territory of the Federal Republic, i.e., all three zones of occupation.
Considering the magnitude and diversity of the program, the size of the staff was not inordinately large. The Exchanges Division in 1950 employed 21 U.S. citizens and 33 non-Americans. In 1951 the number of employees rose to 26 U.S. citizens and 85 non-Americans, in keeping with the organizational changes mentioned in the previous paragraph. It maintained about the same level throughout 1952 and 1953, whereupon it dropped proportionately as the program was reduced. To these figures, however, must be added the 181 so-called County (Kreis) Resident Officers whose duties included, on a part-time basis, facilitation of exchanges at the grass roots. To afford Germans an opportunity for responsible participation, HICOG continued a procedure initiated during the late OMGUS period. It set up selection panels at the Land level composed largely of German citizens. Orders went out (29) from zonal headquarters to establish in each Land and in the Berlin Sector German exchange or selection committees composed of no less than 5 and no more than 15 persons. Each committee was appointed by the Exchanges Division. It was chaired by an American, the Land Exchange Officer. Members were not appointed as representatives of any group but as civic-minded individuals. Their main responsibility was to screen candidates.
Furthermore, special panels were attached to each committee , representing the functional Land offices or divisions (e.g., agriculture, law, education) participating in exchange projects for leaders. While the committee examined the credentials of candidates in terms of their total fitness, their moral and personal qualifications, the panels would inquire into their academic and professional competence. Each special panel consisted of no more than five members, with an American official, representing the functional office or division, acting as chairman. Each panel member was selected by the Land Commissioner's office or division directly concerned. The very breadth of the program pervading most of the operating offices and divisions of HICOG required a kind of infrastructure with procedures that permitted a maximum of coordination on all levels. To this end, a policy board was established composed of the above-mentioned cooperative offices and divisions with the responsibility to recommended policies and priorities for the exchange program to the Public Affairs Officer. The function of this board was changed later to that of an advisory committee.(30)
The procedures developed by the Exchanges Division for German participants were complex and comprehensive. They were particularly exacting with respect to selection and processing of candidates. Each category had its own requirements and channels.
The leader program rules stipulated inter alia that eligibility for participation be based on "demonstrated leadership qualities" and on prospects of continued influence upon return to Germany.(31) Adopting most of the criteria developed by OMGUS, no rigid standards were to be applied regarding educational background or experience, language, and age (see above). Leaders, specialists, and trainees were fitted into projects proposed either by the HICOG office, the division concerned, or by the Department of State. The Exchanges Division in consultation with its Advisory Committee thereupon developed the total annual program within established budgetary limits and in accordance with policy directives of the Department of State and the appropriate HICOG offices or divisions, and the proposal was recommended to HICOG's Office of Public Affairs for transmission to the Department of State which had responsibility for final review and approval.(32) All arrangements for sponsorship of projects in the United States were the exclusive domain of the Department.
Activation of individual projects after approval of the whole program was the responsibility of the Exchanges Division in HICOG upon request of the substantive office or division concerned and upon clearance and concurrence, by the Department of State.
The selection process of candidates started at the Land level where the County (Kreis) Resident Officers distributed application blanks, received from the Land Exchange Branch or officer, to interested parties in the county. Executed forms were returned to the Land Exchange Branch or officer who thereupon made them available to the appropriate panel. Candidates would appear before the panel for interviews. The panel would review the applications, make its choice, and submit its recommendations with a suitable number of alternates for each opening and with a written evaluation of each candidate, showing order of preference, to its HICOG headquarters office. After the latter's approval, the panel would forward the approved application to the full Land Exchange Committee.(33) Candidates from the British or French Zones appeared before local panels. Their recommendations were passed on to the U.S. Land selection committees located in Bremen for the British and in Stuttgart for the French Zone.(34) Recommendations of names were limited to the original list of candidates presented to the panel and approved by the competent HICOG office or division. They had to be submitted to the full Land Exchange Committee with the chairman of the panel or his designee in attendance.(35) It should be noted, though, that except for the leader program, essentially a "noncompetitive" category, the Land Exchange Branch or officer was expected to utilize fully the advice and services of his colleagues and of German citizens of influence in soliciting names of suitable candidates. By 1952 the exchange staff had accumulated a roster of prospects amounting to the equivalent of a Who's Who in Germany.(36)
Procedures for students were similar with regard to personal requirements but differed in that no provision was made for the kind of project proposal and approval that characterized the leader program. Responsibility for developing the annual student program was left exclusively with the Exchanges Division within established budget limits and policy directives. The Division was expected to specify allocation of funds, including estimates of unit costs, and of minimum number of students with indication of field and level of study.
The selection process for students resembled that of others. Candidates had to appear before. the student panel of the Land Exchange or Selection Committee. Their eligibility would be determined in the light of the criteria established for leaders and other participants.(37) Acceptable candidates would be grouped according to their particular fields of study and recommendations. Full biographical details would then be forwarded by the Exchanges Division to the Department of State for final clearance and approval.
At a relatively early time, allowance was made for the inclusion of students from the British and French Zones. Preliminary selection of these students was carried out on a competitive basis under arrangements worked out between the Exchange Division of HICOG and their British and French counterparts. Here, too, intensive use was made of German selection committees.
The procedures established for the visits of Americans going to Germany reflected, at least in the early days of HICOG, the nature of their mission as an auxiliary force to HICOG operations. Project proposals originated either with the interested HICOG office or division or with the Department of State and recommendations were made to HICOG's Exchange Division which, in turn, consulted its Advisory Committee before developing the annual program.(38) Subsequently, the Exchanges Division would recommend the program to the Department of State for review and approval. Activation of projects was the responsibility of the Exchanges Division upon request by the HICOG office or division directly concerned. Recruiting, selection, and clearance of all candidates was the responsibility of the Department of State with IEP acting in consultation with GAI. The appointment of candidates itself was likewise the responsibility of the Department of State. Candidates were expected to have the necessary qualifications that would enable them to carry out a successful mission. This included, usually, a sufficient knowledge of German to establish contacts and to participate effectively in the activities of German organizations, and especially to cooperate in projects developed with German counterparts. Detailed procedures regulated travel, status of dependents, medical certification, and reporting requirements. At least in the beginning, specialists would undergo a 5-day orientation course before their departure for Germany, arranged by the Foreign Service Institute, and visitors were requested to submit a final report to the Department summarizing his or her activities in Germany and giving an evaluation of the project with specific recommendations.(39) By and large, all appear to have complied with the request, although there is a vast difference in detail and in quality. Many of the evaluation reports written in the earlier days were highly critical of conditions, notably in the educational field. Some contained extremely valuable suggestions for institutional and social reform (see above).
American students who wished to study in Germany were asked to apply directly to the university of their choice. If the university accepted the application, it had to forward it to the Office of the High Commissioner for final approval. After final approval, the latter would recommend authorization of an entry permit to the Allied High Commission Permit Office for Germany. The student then had to submit an application for an entry permit to the Commission accompanied by a valid passport. Students were not entitled to the use of U.S. Army facilities. Instead, the university was to assist them in obtaining billets and ration cards. The universities which first resumed enrollment and were accessible to foreign students were: Erlangen, Frankfurt, Free University of Berlin, Heidelberg, Marburg, Munich, and Wuerzburg.(40)
In the following years, HICOG spent considerable efforts on refining all these procedures, taking account of the change of political conditions, for instance, by permitting a higher degree of German participation and also giving greater attention to follow-up. In retrospect, the machinery developed to execute the program may seem highly intricate, often bureaucratic and cumbersome, but, by and large, the results achieved vindicated the method. Moreover, procedures were kept flexible and adjustments were made frequently. Most important, however, they were supplemented by the good rapport that existed between field and home base and between Americans and Germans. As with other problems involving public affairs, exchange officers of the Department and HICOG were in nearly daily contact with each other by telecon. Department officers visited HICOG with fair regularity to study programs on all levels and HICOG officials came to Washington for purposes of consultation. Conferences were held in the United States and in Germany to deal with specific problem areas, to enunciate policy, or, with the help of outside experts, to introduce fresh ideas into ongoing programs. Without the strong personal working relations and the close personal ties existing between some of the principal officers on both sides of the Atlantic, the procedures, no matter how carefully drafted, might have remained a dead letter.